Wednesday, May 14, 2008

KEITH JACKSON: "Whoa Nellie! With less than eight minutes to play here in the 1979 Cotton Bowl, it's Houston 34, Notre Dame 12. Who would have expected this?"

KIRK HERBSTREIT: "Certainly not the Joe Montana-led Irish, the team everybody expected to win before the game was played. But with Montana on the bench here in the second half suffering from the flu and hypothermia -- even eating chicken soup to warm up -- this game is over."

LEE CORSO: "Not so fast, my friend. The Irish haven't packed it in yet and are still out there fighting until the final whistle."

KEITH JACKSON: "I gotta tell ya, I think this is bad for college football. Notre Dame is only 8-3 while Houston is 9-2 and ranked 4th. The Irish need to bow out of this game and rally behind the higher ranked Cougars. For the good of the sport."

KIRK HERBSTEIT: "Couldn't agree with you more, Keith. There are less than seven minutes left, a majority of the game has been played and Houston has amassed 34 of the 46 points awarded today. It's almost a mathematical impossibility for Notre Dame to come back--"

LEE CORSO: "Not so fast, my friend. Notre Dame just scored on a 33-yard blocked punt...and now Montana has come off the bench to try the two-point conversion...it's good! 34-20."

KIRK HERBSTREIT: "But Houston is barely competing now. They have their back-ups in and are just running out the clock until this one is over. And it's over."

KEITH JACKSON: "I gotta tell ya, you hit the nail on the head, Kirk. We got ourselves freezing temperatures, ice and 18 to 30 mile per hour winds. Stick a fork in this one because--"

LEE CORSO: "Not so fast, my friend. Montana just drove the Irish 61 yards in 5 plays and threw for another two-point conversion to cut the lead to 34-28 with 4:15 left."

KIRK HERBSTREIT: "See, that's just the kind of divisive thing that illustrates the old way of college football thinking. When a team is up by over 20 points with less than eight minutes left, college football fans want to be able to turn their attention to the next bowl game of the day. To have to watch until the very end disenfranchises fans who want to tune in to the Rose Bowl pre-game show."

KEITH JACKSON: "Whoa Nellie! And Joe Montana fuuuuuuuumbles with 1:50 to play and the Cougars recover. Now hopefully Dan Devine will do the right thing and have his squad bow out gracefully from this game."

LEE CORSO: "Not so fast, my friend! The Cougars went for it on 4th and inches from their own 29 with :28 seconds left and got stuffed! Notre Dame ball! They have one more chance!"

KIRK HERBSTREIT: "And what if they do score? Are you going to take the victory away from Houston and alienate all the fans rooting for the underdog? Fans who only tuned into the Cotton Bowl in the first place to see if little ol' Houston could upset the mighty Fighting Irish?"

KEITH JACKSON: "I gotta tell ya, the bigger problem is what if the Irish do score, but miss the extra point and we end in a tie? Then nobody wins. Then what? Especially after Houston already won the first, second and third quarters. It's going to be chaos."

LEE CORSO: "Last play...Montana rolls right...he's looking for Kris Haines in the corner of the endzone...TOUCHDOWN IRISH! TOUCHDOWN IRISH! Joe Unis lines up for the extra point...it's good! IRISH WIN! Irish win one of the greatest comebacks in college football history!"

KIRK HERBSTREIT: "I'm so disgusted by the underhanded way Notre Dame pulled this out, I'm never watching college football again."

KEITH JACKSON: "I gotta tell ya, I'm sitting the rest of the bowl season out and will only call college basketball now."

74 comments:

College football gives us no playoff system, gives us Kirk Herbstreit, gives us limited Big Ten coverage, gives us BCS games with buffoons wearing marijuana leaves on their helmets and then they want us to sing God bless College Football? NO, NO, NO! Not God bless College Football! God damn College Football!! – Rev. Phil

"(Catie, I will throw in behind your guy if he wins the nom. We scrappy "irish" can be cool like that.)"

I hope that the rest of America can be so "cool". What are the chances that he selects "her" to be his running mate? It would actually be a smart move on his part, however it would make my skin crawl. (sorry, but we didn't like her when she was the first lady, I am not sure where all the love is coming from now! I just don't trust her at all!) I am more independent than I am a democrat..... either one seems to be NOT the norm for a Michigan fan. Isn't it funny that Ann Arbor can be such a liberal town, yet the alum of the UofM are so conservative? Oye, politics on a football blog, this may be a big mistake! :o)

"What are the chances that he selects "her" to be his running mate? It would actually be a smart move on his part, however it would make my skin crawl."

Catie,I am a strong Obama supporter myself so completely biased, but I have to disagree with you on picking her. I think it would be a horrible idea. I don't think someone who has run against the "old" politics can really pick one of the biggest reps of "old" politics in the ole Hill. Besides, who would want Bill's shadow over them the whole time in the White House. I'm sure Bill's excited though, can you imagine the possibilities for home? "Hey baby, the Vice President's out of the country, wanna come over?" Ugh

Oh, please note that I said it would make my skin crawl to chose her! I meant smart in trying to pull the party together, nevertheless, I fully agree with you (who'd of thunk THAT??!!) I don't want to see her name anywhere near the White House!

If college football were like the Democratic Party then the once the game was over a bunch of "experts" (perhaps other coaches and fanatic fans from around the country) would add points to the final score of each team depending on who they liked more.

In your analogy, Notre Dame would have already stopped trying to score points on the field and begun trying to convince other coaches and fanatic fans that they deserve to win because they are a better team on paper and ranked higher coming into the game.

And a more apt points analogy would be more like they were down 28 points with 10 seconds left to play.2

It's the Super Bowl and the score is 49-28 with 3 minutes left in the game. All the good commercials have been aired and the game was over at halftime when the winning team sprinted ahead to a 35-14 lead. There is no reason to watch the game but the announcers will do anything to keep your attention - talking about how the losing team scored a couple of touchdowns in the second half to make the game "competitive."

Make no mistake about it, the losing candidate's West Virginia "win" is a garbage touchdown scored in the second half of a lost game and it was scored against the 3rd team defense of the other team. Why should the winners risk getting star players injured in a meaningless exercise?

The more I thought about this, the more I saw the wisdom of quitting before 00:00. But the overwhelming evidence for quitting early came directly from our neighbors to the south. If tUOS would have quit both BCS games at halftime, they would have been so much better off. Now, that's something we (even those "bitter" people of Ohio) could all vote "yes" on.

Wouldn't the U.S. be the biggest joke in the free world if we elected a terrorist to top elected position? Not saying Obama is a terrorist, and maybe I've been watching to much "24", but I just can't get past that thought.

Then there are number of articles out there about Obama's tie to terrorists, whether or not they are legit or not ... still puts doubt in my mind.

On Hillary: who could trust a woman who stands by her cheating husband. Most women would have been filing for a divorce that same day.

On McCain: so much time has been spent on the Democratic party it is hard to really know McCain's position ... can't wait for the debates between Dems and Reps.

So far I am not really impressed with any of the candidates that we have to select from this fall, which is a very sad statement. Not that it will matter much, seems that this country is throwing all Republicans under the bus based on their views of President Bush. Though they we are all standing behind him on 9/12 to go out there and kick some ass. How quickly we all forget our demand for this country to stand up and fight back against the muslim nations that supported these terrorists. How quickly we forget that since we took the war to the Middle East, how many attacks have we seen on our soil?

Everyone thinks we are fighting the wrong war and we need to bring our troops home ... but as soon as we do that what do you think will happen in the Middle East? What do you think will happen on our own soil?

I thank our troops for the dedication, devotion and sacrifces they put on the line everyday so that my children can fly on airplane across this country safely, and they can play outside without fear bombs or gunfire.

"Wouldn't the U.S. be the biggest joke in the free world if we elected a terrorist to top elected position? Not saying Obama is a terrorist, and maybe I've been watching to much "24", but I just can't get past that thought."

Simply because of his name, puulleassee tell me that there is more to his supposed terrorist connections! We need "the good old boys club" out of Washington. If I could put all of the politicians on a boat and drop them in the middle of the ocean, I would. (Ok, I wouldn't, but you get my point) We DO need BIG change and one man is not going to bring about that much change, but it could be a beginning.

It was purely hypothetical. Doubt plays a big role whether or not some one is committed of a crime. Why should doubt play a role in searching out the truth on a candidate. Actually my biggest concern with Obama would be the lack of experience both on domestic and foreign issues.

Catie,

Exactly what change do you expect in Government should Obama become prez? There is a system of checks and balances (supposedly) and most of the laws and debates happen within congress and the senate, filled with your good old boy network. There is an entire landscape that would have to be tilled up before you would see big changes in government.

Corey (my dear friend), I did say that one man was not going to bring about enough change. That big old boys club called congress (needs to be put in a boat and taken out to the middle of the ocean)

One of the things that I love about Obama, is that he DOES lack experience, he won't just fit into the mold. Ever see the movie "Dave" ? It just would be nice to see honesty and humanism in Washington. Yeah, I am naive ....;o)

I will say my piece from someone who doesn't give a shit about politics nor about any of the candidates running. But from my solid opinion on the matter I will say this... The democrats continue to F themselves in each and every election. This country is literally starving for a democratic president to pick back up the economy and get us out of this rut. But what do they offer us but two firsts... a black president who as far as I know claims to be Muslim which most of the non educated mass of the country believes to be the cause of terrorism... or a woman president who most of the country already has seen as the president when Bill was in office. Either way they have doomed us to another 4 years of a Republican president. I will be damned shocked if somehow the democratic representative pulls off this election. Not only will you have every Republican in the union running to the polls but you will also get your average rabble of citizen who either dislikes blacks, women, or minorities in general and will vote Republican. Isn't there one normal democrat that they could have paraded in front of everyone this year and would have won by a landslide? Kerry was a disaster in the last election so the country was basically forced to choose Bush. Now the country will again be almost pushed into choosing Mccain. All the while we make ourselves look more and more moronic to other countries.

That is all I have to say on the matter and will not argue my point any further.

...luxury box fans would be expected to pick up the tab for all the cheap seat fans.

...game scores would be in the 100's as nothing would be invested in defense.

...the top teams would all have private jets, but would demand that everyone else use more green forms of team transportation.

...the blitz would be universally bad mouthed, but the players would be supported.

...Gisele Bundchen would be a pre-season, leading Heisman candidate based upon the experience she has by being Tom Brady's girlfriend. Ironically enough, an even less experienced player would eclipse her.

...baseball players would flood the rosters, but instead of cutting the players who didn't even do so much as to learn the culture, rules or language of football, the teams would offer scholarships and issue varsity letters over those who worked hard to make the team, stating the baseball players perform team functions that no football player would do.

This may be the first and only time I say this, but I agree with both Catie and Hammy.

I agree with Catie that I find Obama appealing because he comes in as an outsider and won't have as many preconceived notions or political favors to pay back as his rivals. He has to be considered the best choice for those who want to see change, and they want it yesterday.

I agree with BAH because its almost laughable how the Dems throw out logic and precedent when selecting presidential candidates. Even with the Bush push-back I don't think they're going to get America to buy one of these two as the first black or first female President. If we all put on blindfolds we'd probably want the person with the most experience, some military background, and a track record for voting their heart and not simply voting the party lines. While I'm sure people will attempt to blow holes in my argument, I think McCain fits that description the best of the three. The fact that there are unenlightened voters who aren't going to vote for a minority is just gravy for McCain. Neither candidate can compete with McCain on experience, which is why you hear so many "old man" jokes about him. They are trying to turn McCain's experience against him before it sinks their campaign.

Frankly I would like to see McCain and Obama square off so I can get a better idea of who I want to support. All I know right now is that Hillary is not my candidate of choice. However, I do understand why she is reluctant to bow out at this point in time.

aah. how quickly we forget. seems like only yesterday (1992, actually) bill & hillary were fresh faced outsiders from the deep south, yet to be tainted w/ the stain of being beltway insiders.

and only 8 years ago there was W, running against beltway bandit al. he was the baseball playing texan who had rejected his father's insider life style and gone west to find a fresh start for the bush's in the wide open spaces the lone star state. owned a baseball team, too.

wake up people. there isn't a pitcher of spit's difference amongst the 3 of them.

Ah ha! I still disagree with SiC, so that's one less sign of the apocalypse.

As far as Bill and Hillary, 8 years in the White House and another 8 years at the forefront of politics is going to change anyone. Hard to maintain your "outsider" status when you spend 16 years on the inside. And yes, if Obama spends the next 8 years in the White House I would expect him to change as well. And with W the big draw to him was that he was approachable and personable with common folk. Al, not so much. I'm not sure W's changed, people just have more reasons to hate him now.

2. The score was 35-10 in the last game of the season, the losers were kicking multiple on-side kicks in an attempt to win, and

3. all the while the losing team was trying to influence poll voters that the team beating them couldn't possibly win in the BCS championship game.

4. Even if they winning team scores more points and leads time of possession, yardage gained and turnover differential, the voters could still possibly vote the losing team into the BCS Championship Game.

And I guess you'd probably have to throw W. Virginia and Kentucky in there as a few completely biased personal foul penalties. Then it might actually be an apt analogy.

Serioulsy, she needs to get out, Barack needs to choose Bloomberg as his VP candidate, McCain needs to choose someone other than Romney, and they need to start in on these joint town hall meetings. If anyone could actually change things even a little it's those two.

I have friends that work in politics on both sides of the aisle in this presidential race. Interestingly neither side seems overly enthusiastic about their candidates this year. I think that's a great sign since normally enthusiasm from them means "this person toes the party line". I'm tired of politicians that have to pander to their constituents on the left or the right so much that the middle (where most of us live) gets left out. I'm really looking forward to the race this year since I think we'll finally be able to elect a President, not just a Republican or Democrat cut-out.

(C-Dog? Yeah, don't ask ask- i don't know.) Anyway...been hanging out over there a lot lately, the conversation is a lot more fast paced and there's a lot of obsessing over recruiting and such. It's also easier to comment over there while I'm at work b/c Haloscan can be minimized. I had this up one day and a co-worker walked by, stopped, and said "Are you on a dating site?". Apparently she'd seen your avatar! roflmao. I'm starting to wonder if my boss would even notice though- at this point I'm thinking I could perform various sex acts on an elephant anytime after noon, and he'd be far enough into his daily vodka that he'd have no clue.

I'd lost my comedic mojo, but seem to have gotten it back lately. Wasn't much fun when everything I said sounded forced.

I would say the frequency of comments over here has been impressive lately. And in the last week or so people have been much more personable here- for a while everyone seemed a bit Mzone nationalistic, and that's not the romper-room I know and love. Glad to have everyone back.

Business plan update: I tracked down the guy listed as a contact on the URL for one of the other two companies who do what I want to do. It's now defunct and I was worried I was overlooking something. As it turns out, he SOLD IT to a company in January and they're going to be including it in a "financial literacy suite" of pages. He'd had roughly 6.5 million page hits in the past 7 years, so needless to say he was doing pretty well for himself. All I have to say about that is a) it'll be a lot of hard work but I think I could do just as well and b) MONSTER TAILGATES. Can you say lobster on the grill? My only issue is how does one set-up a portable stripper pole at a tailgate?

Sru, please put the crack pipe down. It's hard to take you seriously when you're smoking the glass dick.

Ok, that's better. Now........

Chuck had arguably THE MOST DOMINANT season by a defensive player ever. Without him we lose at least two maybe three games that season. though I can understand how you'd be bitter. I would be to if he left my state only to come back and beat my favorite team like a red-headed step-child with a club foot and a stuttering problem.

And my "smoking the glass $#%^" comment was meant to be funny, not offensive. Perhaps it deserves to be deleted itself. I'd love to hear your argument, but honestly I don't think there's anything you could say to change my mind- Woodson was clearly the most dominant player on any field that year.

But what can I say? He destroyed us all 3 years we played him. The cherry on his whoop-ass sundae was game against us in 1997. Did you notice his highlight reel? Its like the whole 1997 OSU - UM game. He pretty much single handidly won that game with a huge reception on 3rd and long to set up the first TD. Then he returned a punt for a TD. Then he picked off Stanley Jackson as we were marching in for our first TD. That's a 21 point swing right there. What did Peyton do to deserve a Heisman that year? He disappeared in all the big games.

sru,a LOT comes down to what someone thinks "the best player in college football" means. the second half of the question is what someone thinks the proper role of "pure stats" means.

if you look at troy smith and brady quinn stats for 2006-

quinn passed for 3426 yds, 37 tds to 7 picks, and a 146.65 rating.

smith passed for 2542 yds, 30 tds to 6 picks, and a 161.9 rating.

now, anyone who watched games that year pretty much thought smith was the better player BUT that was a wholly subjective view. however, someone coming out of a coma, looking at those numbers, and then looking at their current pro prospects, wouldn't necessarily see smith as the clear winner.

whatever the numbers, smith was clearly (to me at least) more important and played bigger in big moments of big games than most anyone (during the regular season).

quinn disappeared during ND's big games- michigan, usc, etc. and racked up most of his "bigs" against the fluff on the schedules.maybe it was the rest of the team that let him down, but what you "saw" was smith making plays win tosu needed it against top shelf competition and quinn not.

the same can be said for woodson & manning. chaz was HUGE in games when michigan needed HUGE- psu, msu, tosu? his individual play dominated against the best competition at critical moments in those games.

manning put up wonderful numbers but, like quinn, seemed to disappear during tight games, FLA & Ole Miss coming to mind. doesn't matter whether it wasn't his fault. what you "saw" was woodson making big plays when michigan needed them and manning not.

but, "best" player can mean other things to other players. certainly manning was a bigger pro prospect (as is quinn), his individual numbers were bigger (as were quinn's), and the "importance" of the QB is probably bigger than say WR or RB, let alone a CB/kick returner.

then some peops really live & die on the stats. look at Tebow this year?

point being (i know finally) that almost any pick can be second guessed.

Sru and SiC, I agree with both of your respective arguments. I doubt that anyone (other than Woodson himself) would credit Woodson as being the best defensive player ever. But the Heisman is handed out every year and someone has to win it. Woodson was the best candidate that year. But to say he was the BEST defensive player EVER because he's holding a Heisman is faulty logic. Using that same logic someone would say Eric Crouch is one of the best QB's ever.

The things that bugs me is the Heisman is redefined every year. Sometimes its a lifetime acheivement award (Ricky Williams / Ron Dayne). Sometimes its who put up huge stats (Tebow). Some people fall in love with highlight reels (Reggie Bush). But let's face facts, usually the person who wins the Heisman generally has to be the best player on one of the best teams (T. Smith / Woodson). If OSU wasn't on top in 2006 or UM wasn't on top in 1997, these guys probably would have gotten passed up by the stats of Peyton or Quinn. If their teams weren't at the top, a lot of people would have overlooked them. The best stat you can have in a Heisman campaign is that your team wins games and you are the biggest reason for that.

Fwiw, I think there's a tremendous difference betwen saying someone was "the best defensive player ever" and saying someone "had arguable the most dominant season" by a defensive player ever.

If you look back at the '97 season, Woodson took away an entire third of the field from the offense. When they did challenge him he made people pay bigtime. (See the int against MSU, the int vs. OSU, the int in the endzone in the rose Bowl, etc.). One of the best examples of this was when he got beat deep against the Buckeyes that year. Boston (was it Boston? I think it was Boston) made a taunting gesture as he went into the endzone. What's Chuck do? Responds by taking a punt to the house shortly thereafter. So he wasn't perfect, but he stepped up in big moments while Peyton showed flashes of his future self and disappeared. Even on offense, when he'd run 5-6 plays a game and everyone knew he was the go-to guy he still made big plays.

He made the biggest plays and had the greatest impact of any player on any team that season. So you may not like him, but to argue it should have gone to Peyton is wrong, imo.

cb's only take away a third of the field when they are playing zone. i don't remember the particulars but i hope woodson was more than a zone cb - i hope they actually considered them a lock down corner and put him man to man on the opponents best WR. at that point, the whole 1/3 of the field argument is lost. against a team with one dominant WR, you could say a lockdown corner actually shuts down more than a 1/3 of the opposing team's offense - against a team with two or more good WR's, the impact is less.

fwiw, i think a defensive player should win when the best offensive player is an eric crouch type player, not a player that actually surpassed the stats of the previous heisman winner like manning did.

...not a player that actually surpassed the stats of the previous heisman winner like manning did.

If you're going based simply on stats this would be true. If you're going strictly on stats though you could make an argument against almost every player who has ever won the award.

I'm going on impact and being The most outstanding college football player. The very definition of outstanding is "Standing out among others of its kind." While Peyton was clearly the best QB in the nation that year, he was not the most outstanding player. Every time Charles stepped onto the field he changed the game, whether it was on defense, offense, or special teams. You can't tell me he had less impact than Peyton on their teams' seasons.

As for "a third of the field" I underestimated it. So you're actually arguing in my favor by pointing out my inaccuracy.

As far as Obama's ties to terrorists. One of his first benefactors (Or patrons...not sure which is the right word) was one of the Weatherman and is now a professor at Northwestern. These are the group of people that thought it would be a good idea to plant a bomb in the Capital Building and a few other places. When this guy was asked about it, he didn't apologize and basically said he'd do it again. Granted, he's not Obama but that is a tie to terrorists.

blah blah blah. This is the greatest site ever, but Obama scores EVERY DAY if you consider the the steady drip-drip-drip of SuperDelegates he picks up. Hillary shouldn't quit if she doesn't want to, but this is over.

Whoever does win in November, I wish him or her good luck. They have plenty of impossible tasks before them. I have a friend who is attending college in Philadelphia and she is a Palestinian. She lives here permanently but did grow up in the middleast and she showed me a popular childrens show they have there. It basically brainwashes the youth and it is a show approved by Hamas. How do you deal with people that think this way? Seriously, how should a US President deal with this insanity? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeii225G-HM This video is wrong on so many levels. That rabbit is scarier than the Buckeye mascot.

I agree- I wasn't saying it needed to be an argument, I was saying you were proving my point with your part of the discussion. I've never attacked you and find some of your posts humorous and amusing, some on point, and some I just don't agree with. I think most people would probably describe my posts the same way.

Mikoyan: I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but rather a pragmatist. This doesn't make me right but it helps me seek answers. Do some homework on the things you hear, the emails you receive and the things you were taught. Form your own opinions after seeking out factual information and connecting the dots, but don't be parrot. It'll cause people to equate you with The Little Boy Who Cried Bush, and you won't be taken seriously. Don't become a personification of your avatar and the people it fictionally represents- you'll do yourself a disservice.

Episode DescriptionOriginally Aired: February 01, 2007While the staff questions Dr. Kelso's commitment to the hospital we begin to see the world from his point of view. But when he befriends patient, Private Brian Dancer, the war stories he brings back from Iraq remind Kelso what it means to be a good leader. Meanwhile, Dancer's presence in the hospital causes a heated political debate amongst the staffers dividing them down party lines, while everyone is fighting the patient's well-being is being neglected. Elsewhere, J.D. is in search of a new apartment and feels out of the loop when politics become the topic of the day Sacred Heart.

Follow the MZone

Subscribe To

The MZone-slash-MichiganZone.net-slash-MichiganZone.blogspot.com is in no way affiliated with the University of Michigan and/or U-M football in any way. If you thought it was, frankly I'm surprised you know how to use a computer.